Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

The Declaration of Helsinki: an update on paragraph 30

Jeff Blackmer and Henry Haddad
CMAJ October 25, 2005 173 (9) 1052-1053; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.045280
Jeff Blackmer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henry Haddad
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Research on human subjects is governed by a large number and wide variety of codes and policies worldwide. In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement1 must be adhered to by individuals and institutions who receive public funding for research. However, Health Canada and many private funding sources generally use the World Health Organization's guidelines,2 which differ slightly from the Tri-Council statement. Internationally, there is little argument that the pre-eminent document addressing research ethics is the Declaration of Helsinki,3 adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) in 1964. This document evolved from the Nuremberg Code, which was put in place to protect human research subjects in response to atrocities committed by Nazi physicians in the name of medical science. The Declaration of Helsinki has been amended 5 times, most recently in 2000. The addition of paragraphs 29 and 30 in the amendment of 2000 has been among the more significant and controversial changes made to the document, and subsequently prompted the addition of 2 notes of clarification. The first of these, added in 2002, pertains to paragraph 29, which deals with the use of placebos. Many feel that this note has not served to clarify conditions in which placebos can ethically be used but, rather, may have weakened the intent of the existing paragraph.4 Our concern here, however, is with paragraph 30, which addresses the issue of post-study access to treatment. This paragraph reads as follows:

At the conclusion of the study, every patient entered into the study should be assured of access to the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods identified by the study.

This addition to the Declaration has given rise to significant debate and discussion, including in the pages of the journal.5 The primary intention of the paragraph is to prevent trial sponsors from performing studies in populations that would not normally have access to the study treatment, only to remove access to the intervention once the trial has been completed. This occurred after some of the trials of HIV/AIDS drug therapy conducted in some African nations in the 1990s. Some argued that the research could be justified by the devastation caused by the epidemic, and the fact that these patients could not otherwise obtain medication; others have argued that ethical standards are universal and that all research subjects deserve a certain standard of protection regardless of their geographic location.6

Opponents of the paragraph argue that it is the responsibility of local health care systems, not the study sponsors, to provide access to ongoing health care and that, in any case, the infrastructure does not always exist to enable study sponsors to ensure this access. They also feel that the financial burden on research sponsors as a result of providing ongoing treatment would be overwhelming and would prevent many companies from conducting studies in developing countries, thus impeding the collection of data on effective treatment delivery in vulnerable populations and adding a further obstacle to the development of drugs for the neglected diseases of the world's poor. Ethically, there is the issue of the responsibilities of physicians to study participants, particularly those who have benefited from the trial medication or intervention and may suffer once it is removed. As the great majority of these trials are run by physician investigators, we must examine not just the responsibilities of study sponsors but of physician collaborators as well. The needs of trial participants may be quite different in a North American or Western context than in the developing world. In Western countries, most patients will have access to needed treatment on the completion of a trial through their local health care system. This is not the case in many developing nations.

Many physicians are increasingly feeling a sense of global responsibility and are recognizing that international policies and documents should not be tailored solely to the Western context. If a policy is intended to provide guidance on a global scale, it must uphold the very highest international ethical standards and should not be compromised to satisfy the needs of only a few, especially when those needs are at least partly motivated by financial interest.

There has been a lot of discussion about how best to address the concerns surrounding paragraph 30. Two separate working groups have considered the issue and have made various recommendations, including revising the paragraph, adding a preamble and providing a note of clarification (such as was added to paragraph 29). At a meeting of the WMA Council in France in May 2004 the American Medical Association proposed the following note of clarification:

The WMA hereby reaffirms its position that it is necessary during the study planning process to identify post-trial access by study participants to prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures identified as beneficial in the study or access to other appropriate care. Post-trial access arrangements or other care must be described in the study protocol so the ethical review committee may consider such arrangements during its review.

Despite the opposition of several national medical associations, including the CMA, this note was approved by WMA Council. It was subsequently brought forward to the WMA General Assembly in Tokyo in October 2004. Surprisingly, there was no discussion or debate on the issue in Tokyo. The note of clarification received 71 of a possible 87 votes and was passed, with Canada and a few other countries abstaining. If sponsors are required only to identify whether or not they will be providing post-trial access to ongoing treatment, there is no real onus on them to do so. According to the note of clarification, they fulfill their ethical obligation simply by discussing the issue. In the case of pharmaceutical trials in developing countries, one can easily imagine sponsors identifying the fact that they would like to provide ongoing access to the study medication at the conclusion of the trial but are unable to do so for financial reasons. They could then describe the fact that no post-trial care would occur. If the relevant ethical review committee concurred, the trial would proceed. In many of these trials, the ethical review might take place not in the country where the trial is to be done, but in the home country of the sponsor, often by a private, for-profit research ethics board.

The CMA will continue to advocate on behalf of patients and physicians in developing nations who find themselves without access to proper medical care, and encourages all Canadian physicians to do the same. In today's global environment, physicians need to be concerned not only with local issues of access, but with international ones as well. We will be following developments in this area closely and will bring forward any concerns to the WMA as they arise, particularly if there is any evidence that the note of clarification is being used as many fear it might be.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Available: www.ncehr-cnerh.org/english/code_2 (accessed 2004 Sept 21).
  2. 2.↵
    World Health Organization. Guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products. WHO Technical Report Series no. 850, 1995, Annex 3.
  3. 3.↵
    World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principals for research involving human subjects. As amended in Tokyo, 2004. Ferney-Voltaire, France: The Association; 2004. Available: www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm (accessed 2005 Sept 26).
  4. 4.↵
    Sacca L. Placebo in clinical research: a continual compromise between ethical requirements and scientific rigor. Ann Ital Med Int 2002;17(4):215-20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Dismantling the Helsinki declaration [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;169(10):997.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Angell M. Investigators' responsibilities for human subjects in developing countries. N Engl J Med 2000;342(13)967-9.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 173 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 173, Issue 9
25 Oct 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Declaration of Helsinki: an update on paragraph 30
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Declaration of Helsinki: an update on paragraph 30
Jeff Blackmer, Henry Haddad
CMAJ Oct 2005, 173 (9) 1052-1053; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.045280

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The Declaration of Helsinki: an update on paragraph 30
Jeff Blackmer, Henry Haddad
CMAJ Oct 2005, 173 (9) 1052-1053; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.045280
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue • Dans ce numéro
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Post-trial period surveillance for randomised controlled cardiovascular studies: submitted protocols, consent forms and the role of the ethics board
  • Institutional Review Board Approval: Why It Matters
  • Corrections
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Ensuring timely genetic diagnosis in adults
  • The case for improving the detection and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea following stroke
  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire